Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.335  OF 2012

Ram Dhan                  … Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr.        … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This  petition  has  been  filed  against  the  judgment  and  order  

dated 14.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  

in Criminal Revision No.4259 of 2011 by which the High Court has  

rejected  the  said  revision  petition  against  the  impugned  order  dated  

3.9.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagpat, rejecting the  

application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

(hereinafter called `Cr.P.C.’).

2. Facts  and  circumstances  giving  rise  to  this  petition  are  that  

present petitioner Ram Dhan lodged an FIR dated 4.6.1995 alleging that

Page 2

his son Dinesh had disappeared and, subsequently,  filed a complaint  

against Balraj alias Billu and others (respondents) under Section 364 of  

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC).  The investigating  

agency concluded the investigation and filed a chargesheet on the basis  

of which trial commenced against the respondents Balraj etc. and the  

trial  Court  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  11.5.2005  convicted  the  

respondent No.2 Balraj and others for the offences punishable under  

Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC and awarded sentence of 9 years  

rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved, Balraj, respondent No.2 and others preferred  

an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which was admitted and  

the respondent No.2 and other convicts were granted bail by the High  

Court.  The petitioner’s son for whose kidnapping Balraj, respondent  

No.2 and others had been convicted, came back home and disclosed to  

the public as well as to the police that he had not been kidnapped rather  

had voluntarily  gone to  Punjab,  where  he  worked for  several  years.  

Balraj, respondent No.2  realised that he had been wrongly enroped and  

convicted in the offence by the petitioner.  Thus, he filed an FIR on  

29.8.2009  under  Sections  177,  181,  182,  195  and  420  IPC.   After  

2

Page 3

investigating the case, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and  

others under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC on 23.11.2009.   

4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.  

before  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  contending  that  the  FIR  at  the  

behest of the respondent No.2, Balraj was not maintainable in view of  

the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C.  The Chief  

Judicial  Magistrate  rejected  the  said  application  vide  order  dated  

3.9.2011.  The petitioner challenged the said order dated 3.9.2011 by  

filing  a  criminal  revision  before  the  High  Court  which  has  been  

dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.11.2011.  Hence, this petition.

5. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the  

petitioner,  has  vehemently  contended  that  the  prosecution  of  the  

petitioner is illegal and liable to be quashed in view of the provisions of  

Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C, for the reason that as the offence has been  

committed in the court, such a drastic action can be taken against the  

petitioner  only  on  a  complaint  lodged  by  the  court  and  not  by  the  

convict/respondent No.2.   

6. We  find  no  merit  in  the  petition.   After  investigation,  

chargesheet  has  been  filed  against  the  petitioner  and  others  under  

3

Page 4

Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The petitioner has suppressed the  

material fact and has not disclosed anywhere in this petition that he had  

approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of  

the chargesheet, which stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the  

said order attained finality as has not been challenged any further. Thus,  

he is guilty of suppressing the material fact which makes the petition  

liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground. We are of the view that  

it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose such a relevant fact. The  

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while deciding the application under  

Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made reference to the said order of the High  

Court  dated  3.2.2010.  We  had  been  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  

scrutinise the chargesheet as well as the order of the High Court dated  

3.2.2010 and to ascertain as to whether the grievance of the petitioner in  

respect of the application of the provisions of Section 195 read with  

Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been raised in that petition and as to whether  

even  if  such  plea  has  not  been taken  whether  the  petitioner  can  be  

permitted to raise such plea subsequently.    

7.   In such a fact-situation, the courts below may be right to the  

extent that question of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was totally  

unwarranted in view of the order passed by the High Court on 3.2.2010.  

4

Page 5

For the reasons best known to the petitioner, neither the copy of the  

chargesheet nor of the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the High Court  

have been placed on record.

8. Be that as it may, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections  

177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC.  Section 177 IPC deals with an offence  

furnishing  false  information.   Section  181  IPC  deals  with  false  

statement on oath.  Section 182 IPC deals with false information with  

intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of  

another person.  Section 195 IPC deals with giving or fabricating false  

evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with  

imprisonment for life or imprisonment.

9. At least the provisions of Sections 177 and 182 deal with the  

cases totally outside the court.  Therefore, the question of attracting the  

provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. does not arise.  Section 195  

IPC makes fabrication of false evidence punishable.  It is not necessary  

that fabrication of false evidence takes place only inside the court as it  

can also be fabricated outside the court though has been used in the  

court.  Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions of Section 195  

5

Page 6

Cr.P.C.  (See: Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. ,  

(1998) 2 SCC 493).  

10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the  

petitioner,  has placed a  very heavy reliance on the judgment of  this  

Court in Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq, JT (2011) 13  

SC 271. However, it is evident from the judgment relied upon that the  

judgment in Sachida Nand Singh (Supra), which is of a larger Bench,  

has  not  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  court.  (See  also:  

Balasubramaniam v. State & Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 649).

The  petitioner  is  guilty  of  suppressing  the  material  fact.  

Admittedly, filing of successive petition before the court amounts to  

abuse of the process of the court. Thus, we are not inclined to examine  

the issue any further.

         Considering the composite nature of the offences, we do not see  

any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order.

       The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.      

……......……………………….J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

.......……………………………J.   (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)   

6

Page 7

New Delhi; April 10, 2012

7